MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7070898336

A qualitative case study of emotion regulation dynamics within competitive youth sport families

2023· article· en· W7070898336 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationReflexivityThematic analysisAthletesIdentity (music)Competitive sportDynamics (music)Positive Youth Development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth sport participation can lead to stressful experiences for athletes, and the way such emotions are regulated have profound implications for their experiences and continued participation. As one of the most prominent socialization agents for youth, parents and family members are in a unique position to help regulate their youth athlete's emotions that arise in sport. The purpose of this study was to examine the emotion regulation dynamics within competitive sport family-units. Using an interpretive case study approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two family-units, including competitive male youth athletes (n = 2; Mage = 11 years), their parents (n = 4; two males and two females; Mage = 44.5 years), and one male siblings (n = 1; 15 years old) to better understand the developmental implications of familial emotion regulation in youth sport. Following reflexive thematic analysis, two defining themes were generated from each case. In one family, the sport transition of one athlete marked a pivotal change in the family’s identity and the roles each play in emotional experiences. Conversely, parents from the second family-unit discussed effort as a central underlying value for their family’s sport involvement, which led to different regulatory strategies in private and public settings. Theoretically, generated themes provide novel insight in youth sport contexts and align with the tripartite model of family impact on children’s emotion regulation. For applied scholars, the findings highlight the importance of empowering parents with adaptive co-regulation strategies for the continued participation and development of their athletes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSport Psychology and Performance→French-language works237,207→